BA Pilots to ballot for strike over OpenSkies
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There comes a point where they can neither get new recruits (far-fetched perhaps?), nor does anyone from Mainline wish to fly their a/c....for obvious reasons. ... "
Why would they not be able to get recruits if they were paying industry rates?
But if they werent able to recruit then they would either have to stop their expansion or negotiate with balpa or the market to get pilots in.
What difference would being on the MSL make - other than possibly being an incentive to join OS?
IF they cant get new recruits then they need to pay more regardless of them being on the MSL or not.
If they need to post mainline pilots into OS then it must be cos they wish to continue flying their routes - routes on which they must be making money or they wouldnt wish to keep flying them. They then have the choice of raising starter rates into OS or paying Mainline guys to do it - at least with joint seniority they have that option.
Should we call him "Glodon" or "Cobin"
Why would they not be able to get recruits if they were paying industry rates?
But if they werent able to recruit then they would either have to stop their expansion or negotiate with balpa or the market to get pilots in.
What difference would being on the MSL make - other than possibly being an incentive to join OS?
IF they cant get new recruits then they need to pay more regardless of them being on the MSL or not.
If they need to post mainline pilots into OS then it must be cos they wish to continue flying their routes - routes on which they must be making money or they wouldnt wish to keep flying them. They then have the choice of raising starter rates into OS or paying Mainline guys to do it - at least with joint seniority they have that option.
Should we call him "Glodon" or "Cobin"
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There comes a point where they can neither get new recruits (far-fetched perhaps?), nor does anyone from Mainline wish to fly their a/c....for obvious reasons. (I presume initial recruits will be "OS frozen" for a certain period?)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shark Slayer
BACX did not hire 130 pilots, they just did'nt have to fire 130 pilots
Originally Posted by Pacamack
So the BA pilots union didn't have the foresight to negotiate an agreement that would cover all BA operations any where in the world. BA pilots are now threatening to go on strike because this agreement no longer suits them and the BA management wont go back and correct the union's original mistake?
"In addition,the actual deployment of aircraft and crews will be subject to
retrospective review."
BA won't review, they've broken the agreement. Are you less confused now?
Originally Posted by Bullshot
I would have some respect for the Hand Solo & Chums position if they insisted that Openskies is part of BA & therefore only BA pilots should operate it - on current BA terms & conditions. All Openskies pilots would thus belong to BA entirely and would in no way be poor relations.
But it is not like that is it? What you guys want is access to Openskies Commands which would benefit some of you - the minority - but you are quite prepared to make the 'compromise' that the poor old Openskies F/O's will be joining on inferior T&C's. But 'allowing' them a position on the BA seniority list will be recompensation for inferior T&C's to you!
But it is not like that is it? What you guys want is access to Openskies Commands which would benefit some of you - the minority - but you are quite prepared to make the 'compromise' that the poor old Openskies F/O's will be joining on inferior T&C's. But 'allowing' them a position on the BA seniority list will be recompensation for inferior T&C's to you!
Originally Posted by biddedout
BACC and big BALPA could have been a little more proactive in helping deal with Bacon’s base closures by encouraging BA to accept the transfer of pilots into Mainline
I tend to disagree with you about the usefulnes of having the CX RJ drivers on the MSL. Yes you can describe at as foot in the door, jam tomorrow etc etc, but it was jam today. There were far less than 60 secondees and the BA cadets were not on the RJ. Thats 130 BACX drivers with access to the MSL. Isn't something better than nothing? Had the offer been accepted then todays Cityfler issue would most likely not exists. Perhaps it will all be sorted out in the wash up of the current dispute but knowing the way BA management work they'll hang on to the excuse of the operation being commercially uncertain as long as they can.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re LHR747
Good Morning LHR747, today you get a whole point by point rebuttal from me so you can cascade it back up the management chain!
No, they are not.
Yes it is. The strike ballot is about BA breaching the intent of Schedule K. It's not about money, it's not about safety and it's not about respect. It's about the intent of Schedule K and everybody except the management is very clear about that.
I might not ask as clearly the disconnect is between managers and their staff, not the union and their members. 13 pilots attended the Flight Ops forum, 300+ went to the BALPA one. Who has the disconnect?
Frankly I can't disagree with either of those statements, the latter of which is entirely true. However you seem unable to make the distinction between cause and effect. The effect will be to force down BA conditions. The cause is the failure of BA to review Schedule K. Not being versed in the black arts of BA management I much prefer to treat the cause rather than firefight the effect. Thats why we are balloting over schedule K.
Nobodys perfect, not even you. The GS is a figurehead there to rally the troops and provide moral support. The strike is led by the BACC and that's who we follow.
I lose more than that to BA each year in lateness credit and yet am presented with no leadership whatsoever from our management. I'll stick to BALPA any day. Now if you want to avoid a crude confrontation then the door to the negotiating room is still open. Perhaps you should ask your crude managers why they don't wish to negotiate any more?
Regards
PS Ref MrBunkers previous post, it could well be NP, but also I've seen 'Jonerators ON' posting at the same time as LHR747. Wouldn't take a great leap of the imagination to think that they've set up a single profile and there is a duty management stooge each day. It's just a pity they can't find a competent one.
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of members appear to be at odds with the stated intention of their trade union.
BALPA’s General Secretary has stated quite unequivocally that the strike ballot is “not about money; and it is not about safety”. This is quite clearly not the opinion of the vast majority of the Union’s own members.
How might you ask has this disconnect between the Trade union and its members arisen?
BALPA’s General Secretary issued the following two statements. The first on 9th January where he stated that BA’s “pilots do not want to see its brand or its safety record put at risk” and then on 21 January “BA’s real aim…will eventually force down BA pilot conditions”. So there you have it, the problem is solved.
The General Secretary’s muddle headed response to his own statements.
This does however leave BALPA’s members in a rather invidious position. Each of BA’s pilots pays between Ł400 and Ł1000 per year in union dues.For this they clearly deserve better from their leadership if they are to confront their employer in the crudest manner possible, namely, by withdrawing their labour.
I lose more than that to BA each year in lateness credit and yet am presented with no leadership whatsoever from our management. I'll stick to BALPA any day. Now if you want to avoid a crude confrontation then the door to the negotiating room is still open. Perhaps you should ask your crude managers why they don't wish to negotiate any more?
Regards
PS Ref MrBunkers previous post, it could well be NP, but also I've seen 'Jonerators ON' posting at the same time as LHR747. Wouldn't take a great leap of the imagination to think that they've set up a single profile and there is a duty management stooge each day. It's just a pity they can't find a competent one.
Hand Solo,
I don’t think we disagree on many things, and I admire your enthusiastic posting, but I just think that BACC preventing x amount of job losses is a slightly simplistic way of looking at it. Throughout the rundown of BACX, BA were clearly desperate to avoid announcing official pilot redundancies. Not because they cared I suspect, but because they feared the bad publicity that it would bring. If they had, then they would have been into a consultation process to mitigate the effects. They could have claimed "subsidiary noting to do with us, clear blue water" all they wanted, but we rather suspected that the courts would not have seen it that way and that they would have been forced to suspend recruitment until all displaced were found new positions.
After all, it’s no different to a major car plan closing. If there are jobs elsewhere at another plant, then the company would be expected to absorb as many job losses as possible for people with the appropriate experience and qualifications. If extra training was required, then it would have to be provided.
BA cannot get round basic employment laws unless it sells an operation – which it did. Likewise, I guess it could have sold BAR.
What really annoys me is the fact that by law, BA and all airlines are required and encouraged to teach and foster a culture of good CRM and TRM. Since they don’t appear to embrace any of these principles in the way in which they deal with staff, why don’t they just cancel CRM training for good and save a load more cash.
The principles of CRM / TRM are meant to create a situation where a Flight Deck is manned by reasonably happy bunnies. Some of these RJ pilots are on their third base move in five years, all because of internal company politics. Come on BA, sort it out once and for all, telling them that you should be thankful that you have a job is not really good enough.
Care to comment duty stooge? Colin?
I don’t think we disagree on many things, and I admire your enthusiastic posting, but I just think that BACC preventing x amount of job losses is a slightly simplistic way of looking at it. Throughout the rundown of BACX, BA were clearly desperate to avoid announcing official pilot redundancies. Not because they cared I suspect, but because they feared the bad publicity that it would bring. If they had, then they would have been into a consultation process to mitigate the effects. They could have claimed "subsidiary noting to do with us, clear blue water" all they wanted, but we rather suspected that the courts would not have seen it that way and that they would have been forced to suspend recruitment until all displaced were found new positions.
After all, it’s no different to a major car plan closing. If there are jobs elsewhere at another plant, then the company would be expected to absorb as many job losses as possible for people with the appropriate experience and qualifications. If extra training was required, then it would have to be provided.
BA cannot get round basic employment laws unless it sells an operation – which it did. Likewise, I guess it could have sold BAR.
What really annoys me is the fact that by law, BA and all airlines are required and encouraged to teach and foster a culture of good CRM and TRM. Since they don’t appear to embrace any of these principles in the way in which they deal with staff, why don’t they just cancel CRM training for good and save a load more cash.
The principles of CRM / TRM are meant to create a situation where a Flight Deck is manned by reasonably happy bunnies. Some of these RJ pilots are on their third base move in five years, all because of internal company politics. Come on BA, sort it out once and for all, telling them that you should be thankful that you have a job is not really good enough.
Care to comment duty stooge? Colin?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
biddedout - I would certainly hope to see the RJ saga sorted out once and for all with the forthcoming shake out, we can only keep our fingers crossed. Whatever happens the whole event is a sorry illustration of what can happen when pilot bodies have to fit amongst themselves for work.
pacamack - conceptually it's no different to striking for a pay rise. BA will still be paying us, we just disagree over how much and so a strike occurs. We think BA has broken the intent of Schedule K. They disagree. We strike until they return to the negotiating table with an offer we can accept. But for your sake I'll give it one last simple explanation. The intent of the agreement is to protect BA jobs and ensure that all flying of aircraft above 100 seats owned by BA will be done by BA pilots. The intent at the time of agreement was that the agreement should apply wherever BA pilots have the right to work. BA are now using the new regulatory environment to set up a wholly owned airline using +100 seat aircrafts operating from bases where we have the right to work. The intent of the agreement has been broken and we will strike until the intent of the agreement is honoured. If you still claim not to get it then I suspect you don't actually want to get it at all, you are just here to make mischief.
pacamack - conceptually it's no different to striking for a pay rise. BA will still be paying us, we just disagree over how much and so a strike occurs. We think BA has broken the intent of Schedule K. They disagree. We strike until they return to the negotiating table with an offer we can accept. But for your sake I'll give it one last simple explanation. The intent of the agreement is to protect BA jobs and ensure that all flying of aircraft above 100 seats owned by BA will be done by BA pilots. The intent at the time of agreement was that the agreement should apply wherever BA pilots have the right to work. BA are now using the new regulatory environment to set up a wholly owned airline using +100 seat aircrafts operating from bases where we have the right to work. The intent of the agreement has been broken and we will strike until the intent of the agreement is honoured. If you still claim not to get it then I suspect you don't actually want to get it at all, you are just here to make mischief.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 49
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree with your point of view, that doesn't mean I haven't "bothered" to read all of the previous posts (which I have, each and every one of them).
You intend to strike until BA concedes to your terms, that does not constitute any form of negotiation, whether conducted around a table or not.
You can talk all you like about intent, but the Schedule K agreement does not cover direct flights from the US to mainland Europe and BA are under no obligation to alter it so that it does.
You are holding the BA management, and all of BA's customers and other staff, to ransom.
You intend to strike until BA concedes to your terms, that does not constitute any form of negotiation, whether conducted around a table or not.
You can talk all you like about intent, but the Schedule K agreement does not cover direct flights from the US to mainland Europe and BA are under no obligation to alter it so that it does.
You are holding the BA management, and all of BA's customers and other staff, to ransom.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Pacamack, very interesting you should say that. Because it was BA that CLOSED the standing conference that led up to the exhaustion of all negotiations....
We've conceded to many of the terms BA require to make the business succesful.
Lower T&C's, no bidline etc etc Everything required to give it a cost base that matches BA's desire...
Any other costs, like training etc is largely irrelevant. We have our OWN training facility.
It's also funny that BA argued the toss about the 'intent' of a certain work coverage rule, Net Low Bidding. They said we were mis-using that rule. Note, the rule was there but the intent was looked at and so changed!
So the MAIN question is, directly put to Willie Walsh I might add:
If we can match point for point the costbase required by BA then can we put those OS pilots on the Mainline Seniority List.
Answer: No
Is it about cost then or a leverage tool?
We've conceded to many of the terms BA require to make the business succesful.
Lower T&C's, no bidline etc etc Everything required to give it a cost base that matches BA's desire...
Any other costs, like training etc is largely irrelevant. We have our OWN training facility.
It's also funny that BA argued the toss about the 'intent' of a certain work coverage rule, Net Low Bidding. They said we were mis-using that rule. Note, the rule was there but the intent was looked at and so changed!
So the MAIN question is, directly put to Willie Walsh I might add:
If we can match point for point the costbase required by BA then can we put those OS pilots on the Mainline Seniority List.
Answer: No
Is it about cost then or a leverage tool?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pacamack,
The reason we are intending to strike is because negotiations failed. BA pulled the plug without an agreement being reached. BALPA explored every avenue to get a solution without having to call for Industrial Action. BA weren't interested.
Schedule K specifically states it's intent that it is to secure all BA flying for BA mainline pilots (someone may post a direct quote from it if you're lucky). You are correct in that it does not specifically cover direct flights from the US to mainland Europe. When Schedule K was written, it was illegal for BA do this flying due to the treaties in force at the time so it was irrelevant. The treaties have changed and BA are rightly trying to take advantage of that.
Why is it wrong for BALPA and the BA pilots not to take advantage of it as well?
You intend to strike until BA concedes to your terms, that does not constitute any form of negotiation, whether conducted around a table or not.
You can talk all you like about intent, but the Schedule K agreement does not cover direct flights from the US to mainland Europe and BA are under no obligation to alter it so that it does.
Why is it wrong for BALPA and the BA pilots not to take advantage of it as well?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 49
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I have read across all of the posts in this thread the negotiations have broken down over the issue of the master seniority list. BA Pilots want OS to be part of the list, BA don't.
From what I can see on the OS website, OS want to establish a meritocratic culture across the new company, including the pilots. This can't be done if they are part of the master seniority. This arrangement would give pilots from mainline priority over other pilots in OS for command positions, based on the likelihood that mainline pilots would have greater seniority.
OS are happy to take on pilots from mainline but they must compete for positions on equal terms with other applicants. What is wrong with that?
From what I can see on the OS website, OS want to establish a meritocratic culture across the new company, including the pilots. This can't be done if they are part of the master seniority. This arrangement would give pilots from mainline priority over other pilots in OS for command positions, based on the likelihood that mainline pilots would have greater seniority.
OS are happy to take on pilots from mainline but they must compete for positions on equal terms with other applicants. What is wrong with that?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is wrong with it is - although I disagree with seniority lists - that FOs in BA may be waiting up to 15 years for commands in the present organisation. The labour force logically does not want to become a stale part of the organisation that will surely grow rapidly outside London if OS is a success. The labour force therefore want access to that growth for their future - which includes command opportunity and the chance to work outside London for a while.
Something along the lines of what I wrote a hundred or so posts back, along with the associated cost I mentioned.
Something along the lines of what I wrote a hundred or so posts back, along with the associated cost I mentioned.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hants
Age: 49
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing to stop BA mainline pilots applying for posts and commands within OS. From what I've read, their seniority and benefits would be protected if they were to move across.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except it would only be on airframe numbers 2 to 6, subject to a satisfactory interview and limited to 20% of FO positions and 50% of Captain positions. Doesn't sound like a good deal when you say it like that does it?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this may interest some Balpa members, (I am still a member incidently). About 6 months ago I was approached to apply for Project Lauren. I was interested, & although I have been retired for about 4 1/2yrs, after 34yrs of flying and 20,00hrs one never really gets flying out of ones system. The contact said I could work part time and be based in Paris or Brussels. I was accepted at the initial stage as I still had 757s on my licence. HOWEVER.
When we got to the next stage I was told part time was no longer available & the terms effectively said I would have to fly 6 round trip trans-atlantic trips per month. Also the base could be changed at one months notice at my expense. Suddenly I realised this management could not be trusted.
I went no further.
As I said in an earlier post this operation is nothing but a low cost operation. It is physically impossible to fly 6 NTLs pm long term and as such I believe this operation will be dangerous.
My contact who is still a friend is still in (he has had a ruinious divorce) but has said the start date is slipping. BA were originally going to use ex Iberia 757s for an earlier start, however because the airline had not used them on ETOPs, the CAA refused BA the licence to use these a/c. So instead BA a/c have to be used, which are not really available. Seats are currently the problem, but I am sure BA will get round this one. PL currently has 12 type rated 757 pilots on its books but as to their provence who knows.
People who sign up to this outfit will undoubtably get plenty of hours, but who will train & check them and under whose AOC they operate god only knows.
When we got to the next stage I was told part time was no longer available & the terms effectively said I would have to fly 6 round trip trans-atlantic trips per month. Also the base could be changed at one months notice at my expense. Suddenly I realised this management could not be trusted.
I went no further.
As I said in an earlier post this operation is nothing but a low cost operation. It is physically impossible to fly 6 NTLs pm long term and as such I believe this operation will be dangerous.
My contact who is still a friend is still in (he has had a ruinious divorce) but has said the start date is slipping. BA were originally going to use ex Iberia 757s for an earlier start, however because the airline had not used them on ETOPs, the CAA refused BA the licence to use these a/c. So instead BA a/c have to be used, which are not really available. Seats are currently the problem, but I am sure BA will get round this one. PL currently has 12 type rated 757 pilots on its books but as to their provence who knows.
People who sign up to this outfit will undoubtably get plenty of hours, but who will train & check them and under whose AOC they operate god only knows.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Living & Working in Europe
Age: 16
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"From what I've read, their seniority and benefits would be protected if they were to move across."
BA pilots moving to OS under the present offer would lose some pension and not have their benefits protected. They would not be allowed to move across on mainline scales.
Afaik, Under Balpa's proposals they would keep their pension benefits but would have to accept OS pay & rostering - that would mean that few BA pilts would move across unless it was to take a command at a lower pay rate than they would get from BA. Apart from the command course and possible conversion they would not cost more than a direct entry command.
But it could all be negotiated if BA was willing to negotiate, which they arent.
BA pilots moving to OS under the present offer would lose some pension and not have their benefits protected. They would not be allowed to move across on mainline scales.
Afaik, Under Balpa's proposals they would keep their pension benefits but would have to accept OS pay & rostering - that would mean that few BA pilts would move across unless it was to take a command at a lower pay rate than they would get from BA. Apart from the command course and possible conversion they would not cost more than a direct entry command.
But it could all be negotiated if BA was willing to negotiate, which they arent.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand,
Could have been SH posting as well at the time.
PS Jonerators. Love it!
All,
This is not about us sulking about not having all the flying jobs in OS. In all truth as BALPA have agreed to the lower T and Cs of OS most BA pilots (very fortuitously, I grant you) would take a net loss by moving to OS. This is about rewriting our scope agreement to take account of the latest legislation recently enacted. Indeed, the actual ballot is not about OS specifically in any single way. It is about ensuring that Schedule K (our scope agreement) is fit for purpose in the new regulatory environment.
The reason we want all OS pilots on the MSL is to ensure that, in the long run, we all enjoy the BA pay and conditions. In and of itself, it's of no interest to most of us to have the jobs in OS for ourselves. As and when we sort this fiasco out then the jobs in OS will still, I trust, be there, with the same bloody awful pay for FOs but, and this is a big but, with the future prospect of movement to BA mainline and the opportunities that offers.
I know it's a sheer delight to bash BA pilots but when we've won this battle everyone involved will be in a better position, both BA and OS pilots. Anyone who is hoping to indulge in a little schadenfreude really needs to think what, ultimately, seeing BA pilots destroyed will achieve in the long run for us all. I'd posit it will be just another step on the road to being the bus drivers that all airline management would wish to treat us as.
Could have been SH posting as well at the time.
PS Jonerators. Love it!
All,
This is not about us sulking about not having all the flying jobs in OS. In all truth as BALPA have agreed to the lower T and Cs of OS most BA pilots (very fortuitously, I grant you) would take a net loss by moving to OS. This is about rewriting our scope agreement to take account of the latest legislation recently enacted. Indeed, the actual ballot is not about OS specifically in any single way. It is about ensuring that Schedule K (our scope agreement) is fit for purpose in the new regulatory environment.
The reason we want all OS pilots on the MSL is to ensure that, in the long run, we all enjoy the BA pay and conditions. In and of itself, it's of no interest to most of us to have the jobs in OS for ourselves. As and when we sort this fiasco out then the jobs in OS will still, I trust, be there, with the same bloody awful pay for FOs but, and this is a big but, with the future prospect of movement to BA mainline and the opportunities that offers.
I know it's a sheer delight to bash BA pilots but when we've won this battle everyone involved will be in a better position, both BA and OS pilots. Anyone who is hoping to indulge in a little schadenfreude really needs to think what, ultimately, seeing BA pilots destroyed will achieve in the long run for us all. I'd posit it will be just another step on the road to being the bus drivers that all airline management would wish to treat us as.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR747,
Are you there? I know it's a weekend so there's only a slim chance.....
You haven't answered my question, old chap. To be fair, I've only asked twice. I'll keep reminding you until I get an answer.
If BALPA is prepared to concede to any terms and conditions and costs for Open Skies, why will BA not permit OS pilots to join the mainline seniority list?
Are you there? I know it's a weekend so there's only a slim chance.....
You haven't answered my question, old chap. To be fair, I've only asked twice. I'll keep reminding you until I get an answer.
If BALPA is prepared to concede to any terms and conditions and costs for Open Skies, why will BA not permit OS pilots to join the mainline seniority list?